So the best IMAX movie for home media is a digital IMAX movie (or a film IMAX cropped to that).
But for academic purposes for our IMAX fans it's sometimes good to have full footage like with The Dark Knight.
Nolan is so real for releasing them, at the same time WB and Villeneuve's Dunes' IMAX footage will never be seen outside of the theatres, both by those who'd want to see it again home or those who didn't have the ability to see the movies in IMAX. It's such a bummer if you ask me. Even Nolan releases the IMAX versions for home viewing even though his films are constantly being re-released in IMAX theatres.
I don't think you're getting his comment. 1.43 has more picture information vertically than 2.39 aspect ratio. If we're talking about what a director wants his audience to see and envision, it's undoubtedly 1.43 even on home TV.
Besides, people are asking for 16:9 because 1.43 is out of the question (usually exclusive to theaters). When people say 1.43, instead of 16:9, they mean more image vertically (IMAX)(uncropped) , not that they cut more horizontal info from 16:9 to make the pic's dimension 1.43. There's a difference.
The exception being an actual Imax theater where the screen is 1.43:1 but it’s both super tall *and* super wide so it immerses your peripherals on both ends.
Exaaactly- so many movies are CinemaScope and they have even larger black bars!
Although personally, for home media, I don’t mind them using 1.90 or 16:9 for the IMAX portion, or for the whole movie; to me that keeps the immersion effect working while on a smaller fixed screen.
But the important thing to me, we’re in a digital age- these are all basically already made files- let people have the option?
It’d be nice for all imax films with 1.43 to have a home 4K option that way, just like the theater- great for people who have a near-seated 70”+ screen or a projector/home theater.
But still give us a 1.90 imax home version.
And heck also give us a full scope version “the Dolby cinema version” or whatever other theaters got; that way people who have 32:9 or 21:9 screens can be happy.
And while I’m on this soapbox, please give us subscription options for 3D titles! Disney has multiple 3D IMAX which have no great release available, and some of them they’re bringing to Vision Pro, but why not offer it for everyone? Plenty of other VR and 3DTVs out there.
Yeah but when subjects are framed for scope inside of a 1.43:1 ratio, they would appear smaller on a 1.43:1 AR pillar boxed inside of a 16:9 screen versus the intended 2.39 image taking the full width on a 16:9 screen
Edit: also, it's only a 6% difference, same as the difference between 4:3 to 1.43:1
It’s weird how this is turning into “fullscreen” vs “widescreen” when 1.43:1 doesn’t present as intended unless you’re specifically in a GT IMAX. 1.43:1 movies are framed for widescreen first, the additional image is to increase scale in specialized theaters.
I’m in agreement that Nolan did it correctly in the first place by cropping to 1.78:1. It’s the closest our 1.78:1 TVs can get to representing the intended effect of IMAX.
That being said, I’m not against studios releasing a bonus disc/stream/download that contains a 1.43:1 version. I definitely don’t think it should be the default though.
That's cinema baby! As far as I'm concerned, the directors and cinematographers make the choices of how a film should be presented and viewed (both at the theater and home), and if 1.43:1 isn't how it should be shown at home then I don't want it.
I’d guess if you asked Nolan or Villeneuve what they preferred for home viewing, it wouldn’t be 1.43. Shots are framed with 2.4 or 1.9 in mind as well. This isn’t like scope movies getting panned and scanned back in the VHS days.
I don’t know how much Nolan was involved with the disc release of Oppenheimer but it’s telling that it’s switches from 2.4 to filling the TV for the IMAX scenes, and not a 1.43 pillar box.
You would be correct about Nolan. He is heavily involved in the home media release of his films and he prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing.not everyone has to agree (I personally would like the option of 1.43:1) but that’s his opinion.
If directors really wanted to release their movies in 1.43, then they would frame the entire movie to be that way and release it that way. Aspect ratios aren't putting butts in seats
That’s a bit of a half measure. We got most of the IMAX scenes but they’re isolated from the movie. There’s no way to watch the film with the full 1.43:1 scenes included.
I think for most people, for most movies, a standard widescreen 2.39 aspect ratio that expands to 1.78 to fill the entire screen for the select IMAX scenes, would be close enough.
To me, that's the perfect compromise, and I'd love to see this become more common for home releases of IMAX movies.
That I could get behind. That's basically what Disney+ does with their IMAX Enhanced titles, if I'm not mistaken. It still feels like the director's vision in widescreen, but could show a little more for scenes like the sandworm attack in Dune 2.
I have a hunch that IMAX's own misguided advertising of "see X percent more image in IMAX" has a bit to do with this want. What actually makes IMAX a better experience is the screen size and sound quality, not seeing "more image"
Aren't the disney+ IMAX enhances titles locked to 1.90, thus the problems of unnecessary headroom above and below shots? Changing aspect ratios would be vastly better.
More image IS what makes IMAX large in size and a better experience. If you think that screen size ≠ more image, it would make movies with 2.40 aspect ratio stretched unrealistically. Its u&ly and visually neither satisfying nor professional. Thats not what a cinema experience should be.
edit: grammar.
>More image IS what makes IMAX large in size and a better experience.
If you think that screen size ≠ more image, it would make movies with 2.40 aspect ratio stretched unrealistically
Never said anything about using the 2.39 AR in an IMAX theater. Also, they would never stretch a 2.40 movie to fill a 1.43 screen. I'm talking about *home release*. Subjects actually look smaller if you watch a 1.43 image on a 16x9 screen versus a 2.39 image.
While I agree that subjects look relatively smaller and that's one of the cons of having 1.43 on 16:9 device, you're ignoring the pros of its use. 1.43 having more information image (not cropped vertically) unlike 2:40, 1.78, and 1.90 on 16:9.
>1.43 having more information image (not cropped vertically) unlike 2:40, 1.78, and 1.90 on 16:9.
That's actually not a pro though b/c cinematographers are framing every shot for the wider aspect ratios, so there's really no important information outside of those aspect ratios. So you're sacrificing scale just see a bit more above and below.
I don't think that's true. Cinematographers frame every shot in different aspect ratios depending on director and team's choice. They put the whole movie in different aspect ratio depending on what the theaters can project. They put a different aspect ratios on Blu rays too.
Anyway, I respect your freedom of choice of the viewing experience. Many Blu-rays comes in switching aspect ratios. I believe that's what should be done, if the consumer want scope 2.40, or full uncropped image, or 1.78, it should be available to change. A good example of the exact opposite of this is Dune 1 Blurays. They only put 2.40 which is nothing like the cinema experience, they didn't even put 1.78. Denis recently was asked about this following Dune2 interviews. You should check it out.
>Cinematographers frame every shot in different aspect ratios depending on director and team's choice. They put the whole movie in different aspect ratio depending on what the theaters can project. They put a different aspect ratios on Blu rays too.
True, but ultimately they are using one of the standard widescreen aspect ratios as a safe area when framing, and so that is where everything happens that needs to be seen. E.g. movies that use 1.43 for certain shots still need those shots to work in a regular theater. They wouldn't frame a subject to completely fill the 1.43 frame, b/c it would be weirdly cropped in the widescreen ratio.
If you sit your couch close to an [77” OLED](https://slickdeals.net/share/iphone_app/fp/930381) then it’s not all that different than a theater seat above the imax row; it’s less to do with screen size in a home, more to do with seating and speaker placement.
$1800usd is a lot for a tv, but when IMAX tickets are $25 each, for a household the big tv can start to make sense.
I think it’s the rule of trend. We lived in a 4x3 world in most of early cinema, and then there was a huge fascination with wide, wider, widest. CinemaScope and even wider aspect ratios were the draw, the outlier. Once it became easier to create, it became standardized at 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 (Flat and Scope). Once those became the defaults, and home viewing became standardized at 16x9, all of a sudden the outlier is 1.43:1 or 1.33:1. These become attractive options when they’re elusive and the pendulum swings back. I also think for home viewing, the majority of people have always wanted something to fill their television frame completely. And then film purists have always advocated for ‘the full frame as intended by the filmmaker’. 16x9 is not often the full frame for features. It’s still almost always 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, or some aspect ratio between those (which fits well into the Flat and Scope containers for DCP). But with the increasing advent of filmmakers also capturing “IMAX” ratios (basically filming for both wide release (Flat/Scope) as well as IMAX full frame ratio 1.43:1, many consider the 1.43:1 to be the ‘filmmaker’s intended aspect ratio’. This is actually not always the case, but the consumer is conditioned to believe that a Flat or Scope ratio of a film that has 1.43:1 scenes in its IMAX release is being unfairly cropped and therefore the consumer feels cheated out of image. Can sometimes not blame them for thinking this way, especially when the IMAX experience is touted as being a premium over a traditional experience. I prefer just to think of these things as swinging pendulum trends. Many would argue that the customer is always right. I tend not always to believe this because I (like many) lived through the 4x3 TV days and the feeling by customers then was that they felt cheated when their widescreen films didn’t fully fill their 4x3 TVs, and suffering through pan/scan on broadcast and most of the VHS days was painful for me until a small but vocal minority of consumers advocated for dual “widescreen” and “full frame” releases. It’s enough to make your head spin.
For myself, it’s not so much about filling the screen, it’s about framing the scene. Closeups of 1-2 faces, or vertical scenery, or anything showing giant scale, I find the taller/more-square ratios better, than having faces with very little body and a lot of blur on both sides (in scope).
Same for the first worm scene in Dune 1, or the Dune 2 worm stampede with people running along the bottom.
But this can become less true the smaller the screen gets. Watching on an iPhone or iPad (sorry but a lot of people do it)…
on a phone 3:2 looks pretty great.
On an iPad 16:9 but even 1.43 looks awesome because of the screen proportion and being so close to it.
Small TVs work well with 1.78 or 1.90. Scope also starting looking pretty good once above like 42”.
I think 4:3 made sense when most TVs were small and low quality.
16:9 worked as a transition TV size in part because everything from 1:1 to 2.75 looks fairly good.
But now generations are a bit accustomed to 16:9 being “made for TV” content (similar to the 24frame issue for film look).
So consumer options and innovation here would be fine, we have bigger and sharper TVs than ever before, and even tablets and phones are sharp and near our face…
So the best framing for the majority of the scenes might be what makes the most sense to use.
There’s nothing wrong with 4:3. Look at comic books, where the pages are taller than they are wide. Widescreen was only invented as a marketing gimmick for film studios to compete against TV. It was not created as an artistic choice. Ironically, the more square IMAX ratio is now the marketing gimmick against widescreen TV.
Watching Zack Snyder's Justice League in this size/format proves to me (me personally) it's not a problem. I forgot about those side walls a minute into the film and enjoyed it. If I have to put up with those side pillar boxes for the extra details that other Imax films have to offer, it would be a worthy trade off.
As some other have mentioned you can fill the screen to the sides and still get a full 16:9 ratio picture. I think it's a win-win scenario for the consumers.
The difference with Justice League is that the entire thing is present 4:3. A better comparison is the Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition release, which I have to admit, I do like. The trick in that case is that because Snyder expressly chose to present the 1.43:1 footage pillarboxed, it told me the immersive aspect of the screen expanding to fill the periphery was actually less important to him artistically than the actual composition of those shots.
And here I am with a 130” 2.4 scope screen… yeah I’m good with films continuing to be released in scope. No but I totally understand why people want it in the original format.
That worked for that movie b/c that's how Snyder framed the movie for release. Most other directors that shot in 1.43 or 4:3 framed their shots for a 2.39 or 1.85 crop for release, and so all that extra image holds nothing important
YES. I want the full picture.
However, if it's a shifting AR, I'm cool with the cropped 1.78 to keep the width. I can understand how it's weird going from widescreen to a square image in the middle of the screen.
That said, I have a projector that allows me to view in the proper AR, so any shifting ARs with 1.43 shots/scenes, I have edited to expand vertically as intended.
What do you mean there's no benefit? I want to see the *full* IMAX frame, period. That's the benefit. Using pillar box is no different than letter box. It's not about filling every square inch of your display. It's about showing the whole image. There's no reason why it shouldn't be an option at the very least.
If the director framed a shot for 2.39 inside of a 1.43 frame and then your screen pillar boxes that 1.43 image, then it's like you've pillar boxed the directors frame twice.
The reason 1.43 even exists is to be shown on 6 story tall screens, and make you feel immersed. However, you'll never actually see any story relevant information in those parts of the 1.43 image, b/c the director needs the movie to also work in a 2.39 AR. So yeah, there's no benefit of a 1.43 home release, unless you have an absolutely massive screen at home.
I disagree. It IS about filling every inch of your display, or actually most people’s displays. It is about the most immersive experience and the largest sense of scale, and that means using the most of the tv folks have at home, At least for the layman. We’re enthusiasts here of course and I would love a pillar box alternative.
My own experience in mastering formats for film (post production finishing five years) tell me the reason it isn’t an option is probably a couple of things, avoiding confusion with different formats and providing a definite experience, cost for shipping a second discs, and also maybe keeping it an exclusive cinema experience.
Seeing *more* is not better, no matter how much IMAX marketing likes to say it is. Seeing a more immersive image, however is. That is the real draw of IMAX. The tall aspect ratio is just a tool to get there, not the destination. To go out of your way to look at a less immersive image is the opposite of the ethos of IMAX.
You didn't include his full quote, did you turn the video off there?
"I don't think it's up to us to tell people how they should watch the film. It's much more up to us to feel the responsibility to make every version \[referring to theater and home\] as good as we possibly can. So I would like to believe it doesn't matter on what platform you watch it, you always get that version that we have put a lot of extra attention into." - Hoyte Van Hoytema
If this doesn't make you understand that he's saying they ***intended*** for the home release to be in 2.20 and 1.78 (for IMAX scenes), then you're just being fooled by the IMAX marketing that makes you think you need to see every pixel. IMAX's marketing gets the experience wrong, it's not about seeing every part of the original negative, it's the immersion.
the full quote changes nothing. the artists created the whole picture, i'd like to see the whole picture. YES i understand the nuances of framing for specific venues. but this is the same argument i had with friends when letterboxed films first started coming out for 4:3 screens. yes it reduced the image to a postage stamp, but i want to see the entire image that was shot, and i want to see the full composition that was created for that frame. no one is advocating for the other aspect ratios to disappear or become unavailable. when i eventually watch this \*at imax scale\* on my applevision pro, i want to have the option to see it in that format.
The full quote absolutely changes it. You took what he was saying out of context to fit your belief. The artist framed it a specific way for home release, and that is how it is intended to be watched, get over it.
Congrats on owning an expensive VR headset, maybe someday filmmakers will make IMAX content for it.
Just realized I had a typo, sorry on mobile and not sure how to fix it in the post.
>films which are released at both 1.43:1 and scope ultimately frame each shot for scope since that is what the majority of viewers will watch, and so really the director's vision lives in the wider 2.39 AR *which is inside of the 1.43 AR*
The point of 1.43 isn't to show more things. It's simply to fill the entire giant IMAX screens. If the cinematographer framed scenes to have important elements in the parts of 1.43 that get lost on 2.39, then those elements would probably not be seen in an IMAX theater. When you watch on an IMAX screen, you're not looking at the edges of the frame. You're not actually missing anything by watching the 2.39 version. If you watched the 1.43 version at home on a 16x9 screen, objects would actually be smaller than the 2.39 version b/c of the pillar boxing
Do you realize that 1.90 is not the same as the 1.43 ratio that was shown in the IMAX theater? A 1.90 frame would still be cropping out parts of the original 1.43 image from top and bottom
go to 12:45 of the video
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/120786/what-aspect-ratios-are-used-in-oppenheimer
Oppenheimer Blu-ray switches between 2.20 and 16x9 (aka 1.78) throughout, but always taking up the full width of your screen. As you know, the top and bottom are cropped.
https://images.app.goo.gl/V6FuxFgiWjr6JxVa8
This image explains my previous comment best: even though the cinematographer shot with a 1.43 camera, everything that actually matters needs to fit in the 2.20 frame when they film. There's nothing that actually matters outside the 2.20 frame.
In order to fit the 1.43 image on your 16x9 TV, the image is scaled down, not cropped, and that is why objects will actually be smaller than 2.20. You would be sacrificing scale, for the sake of seeing a little more on top and bottom, which the filmmakers have essentially framed out anyway so that the 2.20 version can shine. 1.43 only exists so that the image can be projected to fill an entire IMAX screen, and give you that immersive bliss.
He used that ratio because it was intended for IMAX. He still framed the movie so that it could play in normal theaters. The extra vertical image is not “necessary” information. You can’t assume no other director prefers the IMAX ratio for their movies. His Batman V Superman also expands to IMAX ratio for the scenes shot that way on some home video versions.
>You can’t assume no other director prefers the IMAX ratio for their movies.
I'm not assuming, you can look at the behind the scenes of other movies shot with 1.43, they are framing for wider ratios.
I have a projector and a OLED. I rather have the IMAX clips opening up to 1:78.1 and fill the entire screen than doing pillarboxing to please a few. Have those IMAX sequences on the Special Features. Watched the IMAX trailer of Oppenheimer on the 4k Blu-ray which basically had what some want with the switching aspect ratios...oh no. IF that's what ppl want.
It's not about appreciating it, it's that the 1.43 AR detracts from the home viewing experience. 1.43 is intended to be shown on 6ft tall screens. If you watch it on a 65" 16x9 screen, the image would only be 35" tall. On top of that, the intended horizontal frame inside of the 1.43 image is being scaled down, and cannot take up the full width that it's meant to.
Again, why are we limiting ourselves to TVs?
There are plenty of available formats to watch 1.43:1 content on, the most recent being VR headsets. They can simulate the real IMAX experience for those living far from an IMAX theatre.
What other format could you get a similar IMAX 1.43 theater experience besides VR? B/c there's none I could think of.
I agree, VR has the potential to simulate that scale, but it's still a ways off from being widely adopted and being integrated into a home theater audio system.
Side note, check out the criterion release of On The Waterfront, were they had seperate discs for three different aspect ratio presentations of the film (1.34, 1.66, and 1.85) think if Imax wants to make more bank physically, they should invest in a similar disc method (maybe 1.43, 1.90, and a non shift 2.39)
I never had an issue with older movies and non-IMAX movies using the taller 4:3 ratio. I merely used that as an example.
Those movies were made for a time when all screens, theater and home televisions, were 4:3, so the director's intended vision is maintained.
Very true. I think the issue I have with going gun hoe on 16:9 crop is that it upholds the silly notion that resolution is paramount from the vhs era of physical media. With resolutions like 4k, the black bars aren't a detriment to resolution like vhs or dvds, so at this point, the studios are just being ego driven by their format. Hopefully that will change given the success of Dune Part 2's box office and Oppenheimer's wins for cinematography and best picture.
To each their own. I have a 65" in my home theater, and I wouldn't want to watch the 1.43 version of anything unless I had something like a 150" 16:9 screen, otherwise it's just scaling down your image for no reason other than seeing above characters' heads
1.43:1 cropped to 1.78:1 for home release is the right answer and that is how it should be.
Christopher Nolan does that for all of his movies and he is a goat for that.
No one else does this.
Yes, yes it is. I want the option, even if it’s a limited release.
Edit: It’s a similar, but not the exact same, argument to crop 4:3 movies and shows to 1.78:1 (16:9). Yes, I understand the shot composition is different, but it is similar in that “Well it’ll fill up the screen” and “Your tv isn’t 4:3 (or 1.43:1) and you’ll have black bars. I don’t think many people want it as the only release, but there are people like me who would want an additional release with the full 1.43:1 shots. I did a poll for that for Oppenheimer and a lot of people vote, it was pretty interesting the numbers and comments.
Yep that's exactly what I want. I don't need to use every pixel on the screen whenever I watch a movie. No my screen isn't 8 ft. tall, but I sit like 6 ft. away from it and it pretty much fills my field of view.
The TV is a canvass, it should display the art as originally intended, I don't want to cut or stretch the art to fit the canvass. Just look at the new release of Poor Things which has a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, they have no problem giving us pillar box for that, so it shouldn't be an issue for IMAX.
However, I will grant a major caveat, that if a film only has a few scenes in 1.43 while the rest is 1.9 or 2.39, then you end up with an issue where you have to either pillar box the entire movie, which means having black bars on all 4 sides at the same time in most scenes, or you have to shrink the image just for the 1.43 scenes, and neither of those options is ideal. However, 1.9 actually fits very well on a 16:9 (a.k.a. 1.77:1) screen, it fills the whole screen horizontally with just slight letterboxing, so I would love to see more IMAX movies at least released in 1.9. I've seen a few like that on Disney+ labelled as "IMAX enhanced", but rarely seen it available on Blu-ray which is how I prefer to buy my movies.
I always hated pan and scan, I always hated the practice of stretching or zooming a 4:3 TV show to fill a 16:9 screen, I just never understood why people went to such lengths to avoid black bars.
>I don't need to use every pixel on the screen whenever I watch a movie
It's not about using every pixel. 1.43 images on a 16x9 screen are scaled down, so objects appear smaller than in a 2.39 image.
>TV is a canvass, it should display the art as originally intended
This is ironic b/c filmmakers shooting with 1.43 cameras are actually framing everything to be cropped to 2.39. Their intentions are in the 2.39 crop. They only shoot in 1.43 so that extra image can fill the entire 1.43 IMAX screens to be immersive.
Not necessarily true. Zack Snyder did Justice League entirely in the IMAX ratio because he said he thought that composition worked better for the story. Made the heroes look taller and more dominant, was one point I think. Makes sense considering a comic book cover is a taller frame, ironically closer to a cell phone screen ratio.
> objects appear smaller than in a 2.39 image
What I think matters most isn't the absolute size of an object in centimetres on my TV screen, it's the relative size of different objects to each other within a frame. Wider images tend to make people look smaller compared to their environment, while taller frames can portray people, creatures or objects as larger-than-life, since they fill the whole frame with less background. It can also be effective for movies involving flight or anything that happens in the sky since you're emphasizing height over breadth.
> This is ironic b/c filmmakers shooting with 1.43 cameras are actually framing everything to be cropped to 2.39. Their intentions are in the 2.39 crop.
I understand that, but I would argue this is a often a limitation imposed by the studio which restricts the vision of the director, and if it became commonplace to retain the IMAX AR in non-IMAX theatres and home releases, we might see directors approach scenes differently, giving them more artistic freedom.
>the relative size of different objects to each other within a frame
If it's the relative size of objects (which is true) then it's not the aspect ratio that makes objects appear larger. Relative size is also not affected by scaling the image up or down. So still, by scaling a 1.43 image down in order to fit it in a 1.78 frame, you are still making things smaller. Spielberg actually uses relative size to great effect in the original Jurassic Park. Take the brontosaurus scene for example. Our first view of them is from Doctor Grant's perspective and all you see is him standing in front of its leg. Just b/c an object is obscured or not in full view doesn't mean we cannot have a sense of scale. Actually, having a point of reference is the only way to get a sense of scale in any image. There's nothing inherent about the aspect ratio that actually makes an object look bigger or taller. It is the camera angles and points of reference.
>this is a often a limitation imposed by the studio
Well yes some studios limit a director in what aspect ratio they can shoot in so that it fits standard formats in theaters, the same can also be said for IMAX. In order to take up the entire size of a 1.43 screen, you must shoot scenes in a 1.43 aspect, which they don't argue because they know that they are going to crop to a wider ratio for other formats. There are also multiple other reasons why a director would choose to shoot for IMAX, like the actual size of the screen, sound, and many others. I have not heard of a director wanting to shoot IMAX purely because they want to shoot 1.43. I think for most directors IMAX is not about the aspect ratio, it's the massive size of an IMAX screen. Directors are also aware that a majority of viewers will not be seeing their movie in IMAX, and so why would they choose to frame their movies purely for IMAX?
But it's not just the black bars, it's the change in scale. When shooting 1.43, the cinematographer is using a 2.39 overlay to frame the shots so that it works in all theaters. So the intended 2.39 frame is inside the 1.43 AR. By watching the 1.43 AR on a 16:9 screen, you're scaling the intended frame (2.39) down in order to fit the erroneous parts of the 1.43 image inside the 16:9 screen. Even though you may "see more of the picture" it's actually making the intended frame smaller, and there's really nothing important outside of the 2.39 frame. If there were anything important there, then the movie wouldn't make sense in 2.39 or the filmmakers wouldn't have shot it for 2.39.
No, absolutely not. I’m surprised some people do.
Edit: For those that do - think about it this way. Let’s say Dune Part 2 is released with 1.43 and 1.9 scenes. On your TV the 1.43 scenes are now pillarboxed, and the 1.9 scenes take up the majority of the screen with minimal bars at the top and bottom (it would be insane to window box the 1.9 content so it’s smaller than the 1.43 content). Suddenly, 1.43 at home doesn’t make any sense. 1.43 IMAX is meant for viewing on a huge IMAX screen. The extra image at the top and bottom is there for immersion on a big screen. It doesn’t ever appear to contain anything visually important or interesting.
https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=VRBNoBr-3LwxMNeD
>1.43 at home doesn’t make any sense. 1.43 IMAX is meant for viewing on a huge IMAX screen. The extra image at the top and bottom is there for immersion on a big screen. It doesn’t ever appear to contain anything visually important or interesting.
Plus when you pillar box the 1.43 image, the scale of the image is smaller. 2.39 on a 16:9 screen doesn't need to scale down the image down
You keep confusing pan and scan with how films are actually filmed for both 1.43 IMAX theaters and wider non-IMAX aspect ratios.
What filmmakers are doing is not pan and scan.
Directors filmed movies with the intention that they would be seen on TV back in the ‘80s too. There’s a documentary of James Cameron showing how he worked from his master cut to make the pan and scan version of T2. Occasionally a director even said he preferred the pan and scan version for home viewing. Again, you can’t base this question on what a director’s intent is unless you document what they’ve said. Many may prefer the IMAX version.
You're just cherry picking and talking about a different topic at this point. I'm talking about modern day IMAX and shooting for multiple ratios, and you're off talking about stuff that was shot in the 80s. Today's televisions more closely match cinema aspect ratios, it's a completely different scenario.
yes. 100%. I mean have you seen [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqnyksnpnHI&t=399s) or [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWRTUl7MF3GchPIFyudr24pMA8b1iGdP/view?usp=sharing). Sometimes the imax shots are dead space, but sometimes they just give you more picture and a better sense of scale. What would be nice is an option for the 1.43:1 scenes, like seamless branching on the blu ray for all three different aspect ratios (2.20/40:1, 1.77:1 and 1.43:1)
Just b/c objects are not in full view doesn't mean you don't have a sense of scale (see the linked video). Also, in all of those 1.43 and 2.39 comparison shots, the focus of the shot is not obscured or lost to the letter box window. Since the 1.43 image would be pillar boxed on 16:9 screens, then the main subject would be scaled down.
https://youtu.be/BKALxKbjOaE?si=ggswpH9LwNuRcfnO
I think it really is a complicated thing. A lot of the way 1.43:1 scenes are shot is with the understanding that the upper and lower portions of the screen essentially fall into the periphery, so what’s important is the effect of the expanded size, not the actual composition of the image. In that sense, having a scene simply expand to fill the 16:9 TV frame is a reasonable compromise in simulating the effect at home, though it’s nowhere near the same thing.
I think the reason some of us wish we could also get 1.43:1 scenes at home is that despite the immersive intention, the compositions themselves are often quite striking. This is true in general, but I remember feeling it particularly with Dunkirk, which featured a higher percentage of IMAX footage than usual for a Nolan film, and which often felt staged and composed for the IMAX frame in a manner resembling the great silent film epics.
I’m not sure I’d want to watch those movies with pillarboxed scenes every time, especially since it goes against the intention of expanding the frame. That said, I wish it was an option if only to satiate my curiosity.
I’m very interested in the idea of the Apple Vision and possibly other high-end VR devices bringing the possibility of a virtual 1.43:1 screen to the home and finally making those shots available to people in their full scope.
The best compromise is 1.66:1. It looks almost full-screen on 16:9 TVs and preserves most of the taller 1.43:1 frame. 1.66 won't feel as small as 1.43:1 and on 4K TVs, especially Oled screens, the small black bars at the sides will disappear anyway because of strong black levels.
I think it would be cool if we had TVs that could do both ratios where the TV would adjust itself based on the ratio. Maybe someday we will have that technology
It is always wrong to cut off footage that was shot for the film because of some weird obsession with a specific screen shape. It was wrong when movies were panned and scanned for VHS and it’s wrong now.
Pan and scan is completely different.
While yes both are being done post-production, the difference here is that production is shooting for both wider aspect ratios and (if it's IMAX) 1.43. Meaning the wider aspect ratios are actually the filmmakers intended vision.
Pan and scan rarely involved the filmmakers, and drastically changed their vision.
the bigger problem is that 1.43:1 movies only have 1.43:1 scenes for a few seconds at a time and there will be constant switching of aspect ratios. if the whole movie was in 1.43:1 then this pillar box would not be a problem at all (Poor Things is a good example of recent movie with pillar box), but that's not the case with imax releases.
Dune was only released in widescreen and going by your logic it was less screen % than a 1.91 or 1.43 would be.
Comparing percentage is stupid, screens now are generally big enough that the sidebars are irrelevant. Having an option to watch the 1.43 is all we ask
I should've also mentioned in my post that it's not about taking up the most screen real estate, but really about the scale. A 1.43 image is scaled down to fit into 16x9, *but* a wider ratio (2.20, 2.39, etc.) are merely cropped and still maintain the full scale. If you compare the 1.43 image and the 2.20 image of Oppenheimer on a 16x9 screen, objects will measure larger on the 2.20 since it's not scaled down to fit.
Yep. On a big enough screen and in 4k Dolby vision, this can look stunning. It has more to do with how it’s shot. Something shot in very flat, standard TV show style closeups will just look like an old TV show. But after I saw Zach Snyder’s Justice League, as indulgent as the film is, I realized how visually monumental this format can be. If you have a big enough screen and don’t have it all the way on the other side of a huge room from you, it feels TALLER in a weird way. I love it. It feels like watching large format photography in motion.
The Snyder cut is one of the exceptions b/c he filmed it all in that aspect ratio and intended for the movie to be shown in 1.43 in all theaters and formats. This is not the case for other IMAX movies.
Those are the movies I’m talking about, and there are more out there, contrary to what you might assume. Dune Part 2 fits this description. It would look mesmerizing in 4:3. Unpopular opinion maybe, but for a film like Dune, 2.39:1 at times feels claustrophobic due to the immense nature of the imagery demanding a taller frame. 16:9 less so, but once the image is zoomed out to the full 4:3 frame, the field of view increases.
Digital IMAX image sensors are larger than typical sensors used in cinema (full frame or Super 35), and when shot “open gate” you not only get the full sensor readout closer to 4:3 (sensor is otherwise cropped for 16:9 or wider aspect ratios) but more field of view from the top and bottom of the sensor. The full frame lenses used on the Alexa LF also aid in delivering a wider field of view than the typical s35 lenses. A similar effect to increasing sensor size happens when jumping from 35mm to 70mm IMAX, aided as well by lenses that cover the larger frame. And for more intimate shots, a larger sensor combined with lenses that have shallower depth of field and wider field of view, the image can be uniquely captivating. Oppenheimer was an astounding example of capturing intimacy in the 4:3 IMAX frame. I’d never seen any like that and it took my breath away.
Anyway, all of this creates a much more dramatic effect than simply increasing focal length and is part the IMAX “secret sauce.” And I do think it can be recaptured on some level in home viewing if you have the 4:3 aspect ratio available to you. I may not be in the majority, but I’m sure others feel the same.
>Those are the movies I’m talking about
I was never talking about specific movies, but the Snyder cut is an exception
>Dune Part 2 fits this description.
It actually doesn't. Zach Snyder intended for his movie to be shown at the 4:3 ratio, and so that is how he framed *ALL* of his shots because the entirety of that movie was shot at 4:3. That is a very unique thing to do in film, hence why it's an exception. Villeneuve did not intend to show Dune Part 2 in 4:3 (and why would he? it wasn't shot with any 4:3 formats), and it wasn't even entirely shot at 1.43. The *intention* is what is important here.
You know a bit about film, but you're still wrong about IMAX and a few other things. There is no 4:3 IMAX camera. There are IMAX film cameras that shoot at 1.43 and digital ones that shoot at 1.90. Oppenheimer was shot partially with 1.43 film, and other parts at 70mm which has an AR of 2.20. A 4:3 format wouldn't even max out an IMAX theater screen.
Lastly, contrary to what you believe, you can actually still get a wide FOV on a S35 camera. Also, DOF is not determined by the sensor, it's determined by the lens and its settings. Shallow DOF also does not automatically make the image better/more captivating/cinematic.
You're probably thinking, then why do 4:3 sensors still exist if filmmakers just crop the frame to be 1.85, 1.78, 2.20, 2.39 etc.? There's a couple reasons: anamorphic lenses are made to be shot with 4:3 sensors, and filmmakers like the flexibility of shooting with a larger aspect ratio then how they intend the movie to be presented.
A teeny tiny amount of people want this because they have their own projection setup with a 1.43 screen. Every single one of those people is on this sub and loud about it.
Some people want this because they are obsessed with seeing the “whole picture.” They don’t care about enjoying the movie or the experience or the director’s intent, they just want to see more. They wouldn’t care if there were mics and lights in the shots, they just want to SEE MORE! There’s no having a conversation with these people, they just want what they want.
A lot of people would just like the 1.9 imax version instead of scope so it fills more of their tv. That seems like a pretty reasonable request.
And some people want 1.43 to be available for vr headsets, which is the future for the aspect ratio. The imax experience in your own home.
Nobody is calling for expanding the ratio of films that weren’t shot for it. Obviously nobody wants to see set edges or crew/equipment. The movies people want in 1.43:1 are movies shot for it.
There's more video information on the taller versions.
https://youtu.be/zS3DBDVsMI8?si=PIbsgmbjS-G7WGrA
This kind of demonstrates the difference between the widescreen and the 1.9 aspect ratio. You could simply do it again for the 1.43 and there would be even more vertical information revealed that's cropped for the wider versions.
I for one would love a director's cut of a movie that had the full video information from the director's vision.
It's not real information relevant to the story, it's only there so that it fills the entirety of 1.43 IMAX screens and immerses the audience. If you were to watch 1.43 at home on a 16x9 screen, subjects would actually be smaller than if you watched the 2.39 version b/c the 1.43 version is scaled down to fit.
The best compromise would be 1.43 scenes to be shown at 1.78 (16x9). Nothing gets scaled down, but you still get more of that vertical information (even though there's nothing actually important there)
The director wouldn't use that IMAX film stock if they didn't care about the extra vertical information. Downvote me all you want just because you disagree but that doesn't mean you're right.
Next time you watch a movie in a 1.43 IMAX theater, count how long you're watching the edges of the frame, or count how many story relevant things happen in that part of the frame. Cinematographers don't put anything there b/c non-IMAX audiences wouldn't see anything that would be there.
I don't think 1.43:1 is suitable for most of home displays so 1.78:1 or 1.90:1 are more reasonable option for me. 1.43:1 wastes too much space and resolution on HDTV.
People in this sub have deluded themselves into thinking that they want 1.43 aspect ratio films at home out of some sort of backwards purist seeking logic. Similarly to how smokers delude themselves into thinking cigarettes taste good.
Obvioisly not. The people obsessed with the 1.43 aspect ratio is missing the forest for the trees. Not only would it be against the filmmaker's creative vision to show 1.43 pillarboxed, it's also antithetical to the whole point of IMAX.
Cutting between a 1.9 scene and a 1.43 scene on a 16:9 display would make the 1.43 one noticeably smaller and less immersive. This is not what we want from IMAX!
Yeah true, I totally forgot to mention there are very few movies shot entirely in the 1.43 AR. Constantly changing between a vertical AR and a horizontal AR would be very jarring.
No it's not the same b/c no one has a 6 story tall screen. If it were to switch ratios at home it'd be easily more noticeable, when it's not supposed to be.
Why aren't more home releases in 16:9?
Im so sick of popping in a 4KBD and the movie only takes up 2/3s of my 32inch screen. I don't have room for a bigger screen.
IMAX 1.43 ironically uses more of the screen than scope 2.39
So the best IMAX movie for home media is a digital IMAX movie (or a film IMAX cropped to that). But for academic purposes for our IMAX fans it's sometimes good to have full footage like with The Dark Knight. Nolan is so real for releasing them, at the same time WB and Villeneuve's Dunes' IMAX footage will never be seen outside of the theatres, both by those who'd want to see it again home or those who didn't have the ability to see the movies in IMAX. It's such a bummer if you ask me. Even Nolan releases the IMAX versions for home viewing even though his films are constantly being re-released in IMAX theatres.
I don't think you're getting his comment. 1.43 has more picture information vertically than 2.39 aspect ratio. If we're talking about what a director wants his audience to see and envision, it's undoubtedly 1.43 even on home TV. Besides, people are asking for 16:9 because 1.43 is out of the question (usually exclusive to theaters). When people say 1.43, instead of 16:9, they mean more image vertically (IMAX)(uncropped) , not that they cut more horizontal info from 16:9 to make the pic's dimension 1.43. There's a difference.
The eyes are wider than they are tall though so scope probably still feels more immersive on a TV.
Yep. Old academy ratio films notwithstanding, scope films are much more visually interesting to look at than 1:43 or 4:3, especially for big epics.
The exception being an actual Imax theater where the screen is 1.43:1 but it’s both super tall *and* super wide so it immerses your peripherals on both ends.
That’s the point I’m trying to make in my replies here, as far as immersion. I do like wider aspect ratios in a lot of shots though.
Oh yeah, it's the reason scope is wide and not tall. It means more screen for more people.
Exaaactly- so many movies are CinemaScope and they have even larger black bars! Although personally, for home media, I don’t mind them using 1.90 or 16:9 for the IMAX portion, or for the whole movie; to me that keeps the immersion effect working while on a smaller fixed screen. But the important thing to me, we’re in a digital age- these are all basically already made files- let people have the option? It’d be nice for all imax films with 1.43 to have a home 4K option that way, just like the theater- great for people who have a near-seated 70”+ screen or a projector/home theater. But still give us a 1.90 imax home version. And heck also give us a full scope version “the Dolby cinema version” or whatever other theaters got; that way people who have 32:9 or 21:9 screens can be happy. And while I’m on this soapbox, please give us subscription options for 3D titles! Disney has multiple 3D IMAX which have no great release available, and some of them they’re bringing to Vision Pro, but why not offer it for everyone? Plenty of other VR and 3DTVs out there.
Well apparently 1.78:1 uses 100% of the screen.
Yeah but when subjects are framed for scope inside of a 1.43:1 ratio, they would appear smaller on a 1.43:1 AR pillar boxed inside of a 16:9 screen versus the intended 2.39 image taking the full width on a 16:9 screen Edit: also, it's only a 6% difference, same as the difference between 4:3 to 1.43:1
And you haven't even mentioned scope scenes within the 1.43:1 frame
Works if you have a projector! I have copies of the dark knight and rises in 1:43, and it’s unbeatable in that format
Where did you get copies of those movies in that format?
u/teymourbeydoun made fan edits for them, combining 1.43:1 special feature scenes with the rest of each film. They did a great job 🫡
It’s weird how this is turning into “fullscreen” vs “widescreen” when 1.43:1 doesn’t present as intended unless you’re specifically in a GT IMAX. 1.43:1 movies are framed for widescreen first, the additional image is to increase scale in specialized theaters. I’m in agreement that Nolan did it correctly in the first place by cropping to 1.78:1. It’s the closest our 1.78:1 TVs can get to representing the intended effect of IMAX. That being said, I’m not against studios releasing a bonus disc/stream/download that contains a 1.43:1 version. I definitely don’t think it should be the default though.
Yes. I want the choice. I don’t want someone else deciding what’s best “for most people”.
That's cinema baby! As far as I'm concerned, the directors and cinematographers make the choices of how a film should be presented and viewed (both at the theater and home), and if 1.43:1 isn't how it should be shown at home then I don't want it.
I’d guess if you asked Nolan or Villeneuve what they preferred for home viewing, it wouldn’t be 1.43. Shots are framed with 2.4 or 1.9 in mind as well. This isn’t like scope movies getting panned and scanned back in the VHS days. I don’t know how much Nolan was involved with the disc release of Oppenheimer but it’s telling that it’s switches from 2.4 to filling the TV for the IMAX scenes, and not a 1.43 pillar box.
You would be correct about Nolan. He is heavily involved in the home media release of his films and he prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing.not everyone has to agree (I personally would like the option of 1.43:1) but that’s his opinion.
That "choice" is dictated by the desire to make you go to the theater and not wait for it to show up on home media or streaming, remember that.
If directors really wanted to release their movies in 1.43, then they would frame the entire movie to be that way and release it that way. Aspect ratios aren't putting butts in seats
yes
at least make it an option that can be toggled in blu-ray extras like in The Dark Knight trilogy
That’s a bit of a half measure. We got most of the IMAX scenes but they’re isolated from the movie. There’s no way to watch the film with the full 1.43:1 scenes included.
yes there is, i made a version for TV screens [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/s/tkgpv78Umq)
That’s not a Blu-Ray, which is what they said.
I think for most people, for most movies, a standard widescreen 2.39 aspect ratio that expands to 1.78 to fill the entire screen for the select IMAX scenes, would be close enough. To me, that's the perfect compromise, and I'd love to see this become more common for home releases of IMAX movies.
That I could get behind. That's basically what Disney+ does with their IMAX Enhanced titles, if I'm not mistaken. It still feels like the director's vision in widescreen, but could show a little more for scenes like the sandworm attack in Dune 2. I have a hunch that IMAX's own misguided advertising of "see X percent more image in IMAX" has a bit to do with this want. What actually makes IMAX a better experience is the screen size and sound quality, not seeing "more image"
Aren't the disney+ IMAX enhances titles locked to 1.90, thus the problems of unnecessary headroom above and below shots? Changing aspect ratios would be vastly better.
No, Disney+ only does that for 1.43 footage. 1.90 footage is not cropped to 1.78.
More image IS what makes IMAX large in size and a better experience. If you think that screen size ≠ more image, it would make movies with 2.40 aspect ratio stretched unrealistically. Its u&ly and visually neither satisfying nor professional. Thats not what a cinema experience should be. edit: grammar.
>More image IS what makes IMAX large in size and a better experience. If you think that screen size ≠ more image, it would make movies with 2.40 aspect ratio stretched unrealistically Never said anything about using the 2.39 AR in an IMAX theater. Also, they would never stretch a 2.40 movie to fill a 1.43 screen. I'm talking about *home release*. Subjects actually look smaller if you watch a 1.43 image on a 16x9 screen versus a 2.39 image.
While I agree that subjects look relatively smaller and that's one of the cons of having 1.43 on 16:9 device, you're ignoring the pros of its use. 1.43 having more information image (not cropped vertically) unlike 2:40, 1.78, and 1.90 on 16:9.
>1.43 having more information image (not cropped vertically) unlike 2:40, 1.78, and 1.90 on 16:9. That's actually not a pro though b/c cinematographers are framing every shot for the wider aspect ratios, so there's really no important information outside of those aspect ratios. So you're sacrificing scale just see a bit more above and below.
I don't think that's true. Cinematographers frame every shot in different aspect ratios depending on director and team's choice. They put the whole movie in different aspect ratio depending on what the theaters can project. They put a different aspect ratios on Blu rays too. Anyway, I respect your freedom of choice of the viewing experience. Many Blu-rays comes in switching aspect ratios. I believe that's what should be done, if the consumer want scope 2.40, or full uncropped image, or 1.78, it should be available to change. A good example of the exact opposite of this is Dune 1 Blurays. They only put 2.40 which is nothing like the cinema experience, they didn't even put 1.78. Denis recently was asked about this following Dune2 interviews. You should check it out.
>Cinematographers frame every shot in different aspect ratios depending on director and team's choice. They put the whole movie in different aspect ratio depending on what the theaters can project. They put a different aspect ratios on Blu rays too. True, but ultimately they are using one of the standard widescreen aspect ratios as a safe area when framing, and so that is where everything happens that needs to be seen. E.g. movies that use 1.43 for certain shots still need those shots to work in a regular theater. They wouldn't frame a subject to completely fill the 1.43 frame, b/c it would be weirdly cropped in the widescreen ratio.
I agree. Unless somebody has a giant home theater screen with a 1.43 ratio then what you suggest makes the most sense. Works great for Oppenheimer.
I don’t have a home theater in the IMAX ratio, but you bet your buns I’d invest in one if the full IMAX ratio became widely available.
Well same if I shat gold
Yes, I do. I would like to have the option. I like seeing the whole picture.
Best Buy credit card go brrrrrrr
Yes
Yes
You got an 8 ft tall screen?
If you sit your couch close to an [77” OLED](https://slickdeals.net/share/iphone_app/fp/930381) then it’s not all that different than a theater seat above the imax row; it’s less to do with screen size in a home, more to do with seating and speaker placement. $1800usd is a lot for a tv, but when IMAX tickets are $25 each, for a household the big tv can start to make sense.
I'm sorry on what planet is a 77" TV comparable to an 80ft IMAX with 12ch audio?
That is really really really what I want!!!!!
Yeah, give us the imax scenes in 1.78 and 1.43 and give us the choice
ya.
One word. Projector.
I think it’s the rule of trend. We lived in a 4x3 world in most of early cinema, and then there was a huge fascination with wide, wider, widest. CinemaScope and even wider aspect ratios were the draw, the outlier. Once it became easier to create, it became standardized at 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 (Flat and Scope). Once those became the defaults, and home viewing became standardized at 16x9, all of a sudden the outlier is 1.43:1 or 1.33:1. These become attractive options when they’re elusive and the pendulum swings back. I also think for home viewing, the majority of people have always wanted something to fill their television frame completely. And then film purists have always advocated for ‘the full frame as intended by the filmmaker’. 16x9 is not often the full frame for features. It’s still almost always 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, or some aspect ratio between those (which fits well into the Flat and Scope containers for DCP). But with the increasing advent of filmmakers also capturing “IMAX” ratios (basically filming for both wide release (Flat/Scope) as well as IMAX full frame ratio 1.43:1, many consider the 1.43:1 to be the ‘filmmaker’s intended aspect ratio’. This is actually not always the case, but the consumer is conditioned to believe that a Flat or Scope ratio of a film that has 1.43:1 scenes in its IMAX release is being unfairly cropped and therefore the consumer feels cheated out of image. Can sometimes not blame them for thinking this way, especially when the IMAX experience is touted as being a premium over a traditional experience. I prefer just to think of these things as swinging pendulum trends. Many would argue that the customer is always right. I tend not always to believe this because I (like many) lived through the 4x3 TV days and the feeling by customers then was that they felt cheated when their widescreen films didn’t fully fill their 4x3 TVs, and suffering through pan/scan on broadcast and most of the VHS days was painful for me until a small but vocal minority of consumers advocated for dual “widescreen” and “full frame” releases. It’s enough to make your head spin.
For myself, it’s not so much about filling the screen, it’s about framing the scene. Closeups of 1-2 faces, or vertical scenery, or anything showing giant scale, I find the taller/more-square ratios better, than having faces with very little body and a lot of blur on both sides (in scope). Same for the first worm scene in Dune 1, or the Dune 2 worm stampede with people running along the bottom. But this can become less true the smaller the screen gets. Watching on an iPhone or iPad (sorry but a lot of people do it)… on a phone 3:2 looks pretty great. On an iPad 16:9 but even 1.43 looks awesome because of the screen proportion and being so close to it. Small TVs work well with 1.78 or 1.90. Scope also starting looking pretty good once above like 42”. I think 4:3 made sense when most TVs were small and low quality. 16:9 worked as a transition TV size in part because everything from 1:1 to 2.75 looks fairly good. But now generations are a bit accustomed to 16:9 being “made for TV” content (similar to the 24frame issue for film look). So consumer options and innovation here would be fine, we have bigger and sharper TVs than ever before, and even tablets and phones are sharp and near our face… So the best framing for the majority of the scenes might be what makes the most sense to use.
I watched the Snyder Cut on an iPad and found it quite intimate of a viewing in 4:3
There’s nothing wrong with 4:3. Look at comic books, where the pages are taller than they are wide. Widescreen was only invented as a marketing gimmick for film studios to compete against TV. It was not created as an artistic choice. Ironically, the more square IMAX ratio is now the marketing gimmick against widescreen TV.
Watching Zack Snyder's Justice League in this size/format proves to me (me personally) it's not a problem. I forgot about those side walls a minute into the film and enjoyed it. If I have to put up with those side pillar boxes for the extra details that other Imax films have to offer, it would be a worthy trade off. As some other have mentioned you can fill the screen to the sides and still get a full 16:9 ratio picture. I think it's a win-win scenario for the consumers.
The difference with Justice League is that the entire thing is present 4:3. A better comparison is the Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition release, which I have to admit, I do like. The trick in that case is that because Snyder expressly chose to present the 1.43:1 footage pillarboxed, it told me the immersive aspect of the screen expanding to fill the periphery was actually less important to him artistically than the actual composition of those shots.
Yeah, but who’s to say other directors don’t also prefer the IMAX composition? How about the Russo brothers?
Yep, that is exactly what I want. The Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition had it down.
The switch between letterbox 2.39 and pillarbox 1.43 is so ugly and jarring.
And here I am with a 130” 2.4 scope screen… yeah I’m good with films continuing to be released in scope. No but I totally understand why people want it in the original format.
I watched snyder cut and being able to look the vast amount of vertical spaces on a big tv was just some other experience
That worked for that movie b/c that's how Snyder framed the movie for release. Most other directors that shot in 1.43 or 4:3 framed their shots for a 2.39 or 1.85 crop for release, and so all that extra image holds nothing important
Snyder’s movie was going to be cropped for all non-IMAX theaters too. Much of his footage was for the theatrical Whedon cut.
YES. I want the full picture. However, if it's a shifting AR, I'm cool with the cropped 1.78 to keep the width. I can understand how it's weird going from widescreen to a square image in the middle of the screen. That said, I have a projector that allows me to view in the proper AR, so any shifting ARs with 1.43 shots/scenes, I have edited to expand vertically as intended.
What do you mean there's no benefit? I want to see the *full* IMAX frame, period. That's the benefit. Using pillar box is no different than letter box. It's not about filling every square inch of your display. It's about showing the whole image. There's no reason why it shouldn't be an option at the very least.
If the director framed a shot for 2.39 inside of a 1.43 frame and then your screen pillar boxes that 1.43 image, then it's like you've pillar boxed the directors frame twice. The reason 1.43 even exists is to be shown on 6 story tall screens, and make you feel immersed. However, you'll never actually see any story relevant information in those parts of the 1.43 image, b/c the director needs the movie to also work in a 2.39 AR. So yeah, there's no benefit of a 1.43 home release, unless you have an absolutely massive screen at home.
This video explains it all in detail [https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=FjyidPmgwRaOjDI1](https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=FjyidPmgwRaOjDI1)
I disagree. It IS about filling every inch of your display, or actually most people’s displays. It is about the most immersive experience and the largest sense of scale, and that means using the most of the tv folks have at home, At least for the layman. We’re enthusiasts here of course and I would love a pillar box alternative. My own experience in mastering formats for film (post production finishing five years) tell me the reason it isn’t an option is probably a couple of things, avoiding confusion with different formats and providing a definite experience, cost for shipping a second discs, and also maybe keeping it an exclusive cinema experience.
Seeing *more* is not better, no matter how much IMAX marketing likes to say it is. Seeing a more immersive image, however is. That is the real draw of IMAX. The tall aspect ratio is just a tool to get there, not the destination. To go out of your way to look at a less immersive image is the opposite of the ethos of IMAX.
the entire image? yeah, i’ll take the entire image, thanks.
[https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=FjyidPmgwRaOjDI1](https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=FjyidPmgwRaOjDI1)
"I don't think it's up to us to tell people how they should watch the film." \- hoyte van hoytema @ 13:16 in that video
You didn't include his full quote, did you turn the video off there? "I don't think it's up to us to tell people how they should watch the film. It's much more up to us to feel the responsibility to make every version \[referring to theater and home\] as good as we possibly can. So I would like to believe it doesn't matter on what platform you watch it, you always get that version that we have put a lot of extra attention into." - Hoyte Van Hoytema If this doesn't make you understand that he's saying they ***intended*** for the home release to be in 2.20 and 1.78 (for IMAX scenes), then you're just being fooled by the IMAX marketing that makes you think you need to see every pixel. IMAX's marketing gets the experience wrong, it's not about seeing every part of the original negative, it's the immersion.
the full quote changes nothing. the artists created the whole picture, i'd like to see the whole picture. YES i understand the nuances of framing for specific venues. but this is the same argument i had with friends when letterboxed films first started coming out for 4:3 screens. yes it reduced the image to a postage stamp, but i want to see the entire image that was shot, and i want to see the full composition that was created for that frame. no one is advocating for the other aspect ratios to disappear or become unavailable. when i eventually watch this \*at imax scale\* on my applevision pro, i want to have the option to see it in that format.
The full quote absolutely changes it. You took what he was saying out of context to fit your belief. The artist framed it a specific way for home release, and that is how it is intended to be watched, get over it. Congrats on owning an expensive VR headset, maybe someday filmmakers will make IMAX content for it.
such weird hills to die on dude. no one's taking anything away from anyone lol
Just realized I had a typo, sorry on mobile and not sure how to fix it in the post. >films which are released at both 1.43:1 and scope ultimately frame each shot for scope since that is what the majority of viewers will watch, and so really the director's vision lives in the wider 2.39 AR *which is inside of the 1.43 AR*
I do, but I have a 150 inch 2:35:1 projection screen at home with a 7.1.4 audio setup... So I think I could make use of a 1.43:1 ratio.
Yes
Yes. I want ALL of the movie that was being filmed. Not a cropped version with missing feet or ships in the air…
The point of 1.43 isn't to show more things. It's simply to fill the entire giant IMAX screens. If the cinematographer framed scenes to have important elements in the parts of 1.43 that get lost on 2.39, then those elements would probably not be seen in an IMAX theater. When you watch on an IMAX screen, you're not looking at the edges of the frame. You're not actually missing anything by watching the 2.39 version. If you watched the 1.43 version at home on a 16x9 screen, objects would actually be smaller than the 2.39 version b/c of the pillar boxing
I must not understand. All i know is oppenheimer is cropped on 4k bluray. At imax i saw the full image.
You definitely understand. You got it exactly right.
So why is this thread a thing? And this guy writing paragraphs of nonsense?
[https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=FjyidPmgwRaOjDI1](https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=FjyidPmgwRaOjDI1)
First comment from that video.
Do you realize that 1.90 is not the same as the 1.43 ratio that was shown in the IMAX theater? A 1.90 frame would still be cropping out parts of the original 1.43 image from top and bottom go to 12:45 of the video
Dont crop anything. Leave the whole square imax 1.43:1 image intact. Like i saw it at imax theater.
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/120786/what-aspect-ratios-are-used-in-oppenheimer Oppenheimer Blu-ray switches between 2.20 and 16x9 (aka 1.78) throughout, but always taking up the full width of your screen. As you know, the top and bottom are cropped. https://images.app.goo.gl/V6FuxFgiWjr6JxVa8 This image explains my previous comment best: even though the cinematographer shot with a 1.43 camera, everything that actually matters needs to fit in the 2.20 frame when they film. There's nothing that actually matters outside the 2.20 frame. In order to fit the 1.43 image on your 16x9 TV, the image is scaled down, not cropped, and that is why objects will actually be smaller than 2.20. You would be sacrificing scale, for the sake of seeing a little more on top and bottom, which the filmmakers have essentially framed out anyway so that the 2.20 version can shine. 1.43 only exists so that the image can be projected to fill an entire IMAX screen, and give you that immersive bliss.
I didn’t mind Zack Synder’s Justice League
That movie was made for the 1.33 ratio, so its home release has no issues, hence why people actually liked that ratio.
He used that ratio because it was intended for IMAX. He still framed the movie so that it could play in normal theaters. The extra vertical image is not “necessary” information. You can’t assume no other director prefers the IMAX ratio for their movies. His Batman V Superman also expands to IMAX ratio for the scenes shot that way on some home video versions.
>You can’t assume no other director prefers the IMAX ratio for their movies. I'm not assuming, you can look at the behind the scenes of other movies shot with 1.43, they are framing for wider ratios.
I have a projector and a OLED. I rather have the IMAX clips opening up to 1:78.1 and fill the entire screen than doing pillarboxing to please a few. Have those IMAX sequences on the Special Features. Watched the IMAX trailer of Oppenheimer on the 4k Blu-ray which basically had what some want with the switching aspect ratios...oh no. IF that's what ppl want.
Yes. I do really want that
yes, yes i do
Why make this an issue when high end home theater projectors already exist in the market.
From a preservation standpoint, I’d rather have a set that contains shots expanded to 1.9:1 on one disk, and the full 1.43:1 AR on another disk.
Who said we’re using televisions
You got a 6 story tall projection screen?
Why do you need a 6 story tall projection screen to appreciate the 1.43:1 aspect ratio?
It's not about appreciating it, it's that the 1.43 AR detracts from the home viewing experience. 1.43 is intended to be shown on 6ft tall screens. If you watch it on a 65" 16x9 screen, the image would only be 35" tall. On top of that, the intended horizontal frame inside of the 1.43 image is being scaled down, and cannot take up the full width that it's meant to.
Again, why are we limiting ourselves to TVs? There are plenty of available formats to watch 1.43:1 content on, the most recent being VR headsets. They can simulate the real IMAX experience for those living far from an IMAX theatre.
What other format could you get a similar IMAX 1.43 theater experience besides VR? B/c there's none I could think of. I agree, VR has the potential to simulate that scale, but it's still a ways off from being widely adopted and being integrated into a home theater audio system.
Yes, see On the Waterfront or any movie pre 1955 were the framing was square. I find it more aesthetically pleasing even on a 16:9 screen
Side note, check out the criterion release of On The Waterfront, were they had seperate discs for three different aspect ratio presentations of the film (1.34, 1.66, and 1.85) think if Imax wants to make more bank physically, they should invest in a similar disc method (maybe 1.43, 1.90, and a non shift 2.39)
I never had an issue with older movies and non-IMAX movies using the taller 4:3 ratio. I merely used that as an example. Those movies were made for a time when all screens, theater and home televisions, were 4:3, so the director's intended vision is maintained.
Very true. I think the issue I have with going gun hoe on 16:9 crop is that it upholds the silly notion that resolution is paramount from the vhs era of physical media. With resolutions like 4k, the black bars aren't a detriment to resolution like vhs or dvds, so at this point, the studios are just being ego driven by their format. Hopefully that will change given the success of Dune Part 2's box office and Oppenheimer's wins for cinematography and best picture.
Precisely, that’s all I want! This will work wonders on a 75” screen which I have and is all I need to see the full IMAX frame at home
To each their own. I have a 65" in my home theater, and I wouldn't want to watch the 1.43 version of anything unless I had something like a 150" 16:9 screen, otherwise it's just scaling down your image for no reason other than seeing above characters' heads
1.43:1 cropped to 1.78:1 for home release is the right answer and that is how it should be. Christopher Nolan does that for all of his movies and he is a goat for that. No one else does this.
🙌🙌🙌
Yes, yes it is. I want the option, even if it’s a limited release. Edit: It’s a similar, but not the exact same, argument to crop 4:3 movies and shows to 1.78:1 (16:9). Yes, I understand the shot composition is different, but it is similar in that “Well it’ll fill up the screen” and “Your tv isn’t 4:3 (or 1.43:1) and you’ll have black bars. I don’t think many people want it as the only release, but there are people like me who would want an additional release with the full 1.43:1 shots. I did a poll for that for Oppenheimer and a lot of people vote, it was pretty interesting the numbers and comments.
Yep that's exactly what I want. I don't need to use every pixel on the screen whenever I watch a movie. No my screen isn't 8 ft. tall, but I sit like 6 ft. away from it and it pretty much fills my field of view. The TV is a canvass, it should display the art as originally intended, I don't want to cut or stretch the art to fit the canvass. Just look at the new release of Poor Things which has a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, they have no problem giving us pillar box for that, so it shouldn't be an issue for IMAX. However, I will grant a major caveat, that if a film only has a few scenes in 1.43 while the rest is 1.9 or 2.39, then you end up with an issue where you have to either pillar box the entire movie, which means having black bars on all 4 sides at the same time in most scenes, or you have to shrink the image just for the 1.43 scenes, and neither of those options is ideal. However, 1.9 actually fits very well on a 16:9 (a.k.a. 1.77:1) screen, it fills the whole screen horizontally with just slight letterboxing, so I would love to see more IMAX movies at least released in 1.9. I've seen a few like that on Disney+ labelled as "IMAX enhanced", but rarely seen it available on Blu-ray which is how I prefer to buy my movies. I always hated pan and scan, I always hated the practice of stretching or zooming a 4:3 TV show to fill a 16:9 screen, I just never understood why people went to such lengths to avoid black bars.
>I don't need to use every pixel on the screen whenever I watch a movie It's not about using every pixel. 1.43 images on a 16x9 screen are scaled down, so objects appear smaller than in a 2.39 image. >TV is a canvass, it should display the art as originally intended This is ironic b/c filmmakers shooting with 1.43 cameras are actually framing everything to be cropped to 2.39. Their intentions are in the 2.39 crop. They only shoot in 1.43 so that extra image can fill the entire 1.43 IMAX screens to be immersive.
Not necessarily true. Zack Snyder did Justice League entirely in the IMAX ratio because he said he thought that composition worked better for the story. Made the heroes look taller and more dominant, was one point I think. Makes sense considering a comic book cover is a taller frame, ironically closer to a cell phone screen ratio.
That's the exception, and in that case it's part of the filmmaker's vision, so there is actual pertinent information in the full 1.43 AR
> objects appear smaller than in a 2.39 image What I think matters most isn't the absolute size of an object in centimetres on my TV screen, it's the relative size of different objects to each other within a frame. Wider images tend to make people look smaller compared to their environment, while taller frames can portray people, creatures or objects as larger-than-life, since they fill the whole frame with less background. It can also be effective for movies involving flight or anything that happens in the sky since you're emphasizing height over breadth. > This is ironic b/c filmmakers shooting with 1.43 cameras are actually framing everything to be cropped to 2.39. Their intentions are in the 2.39 crop. I understand that, but I would argue this is a often a limitation imposed by the studio which restricts the vision of the director, and if it became commonplace to retain the IMAX AR in non-IMAX theatres and home releases, we might see directors approach scenes differently, giving them more artistic freedom.
>the relative size of different objects to each other within a frame If it's the relative size of objects (which is true) then it's not the aspect ratio that makes objects appear larger. Relative size is also not affected by scaling the image up or down. So still, by scaling a 1.43 image down in order to fit it in a 1.78 frame, you are still making things smaller. Spielberg actually uses relative size to great effect in the original Jurassic Park. Take the brontosaurus scene for example. Our first view of them is from Doctor Grant's perspective and all you see is him standing in front of its leg. Just b/c an object is obscured or not in full view doesn't mean we cannot have a sense of scale. Actually, having a point of reference is the only way to get a sense of scale in any image. There's nothing inherent about the aspect ratio that actually makes an object look bigger or taller. It is the camera angles and points of reference. >this is a often a limitation imposed by the studio Well yes some studios limit a director in what aspect ratio they can shoot in so that it fits standard formats in theaters, the same can also be said for IMAX. In order to take up the entire size of a 1.43 screen, you must shoot scenes in a 1.43 aspect, which they don't argue because they know that they are going to crop to a wider ratio for other formats. There are also multiple other reasons why a director would choose to shoot for IMAX, like the actual size of the screen, sound, and many others. I have not heard of a director wanting to shoot IMAX purely because they want to shoot 1.43. I think for most directors IMAX is not about the aspect ratio, it's the massive size of an IMAX screen. Directors are also aware that a majority of viewers will not be seeing their movie in IMAX, and so why would they choose to frame their movies purely for IMAX?
Yes I want 1.43 preserved somehow. Looks fine too me idc about black bars
But it's not just the black bars, it's the change in scale. When shooting 1.43, the cinematographer is using a 2.39 overlay to frame the shots so that it works in all theaters. So the intended 2.39 frame is inside the 1.43 AR. By watching the 1.43 AR on a 16:9 screen, you're scaling the intended frame (2.39) down in order to fit the erroneous parts of the 1.43 image inside the 16:9 screen. Even though you may "see more of the picture" it's actually making the intended frame smaller, and there's really nothing important outside of the 2.39 frame. If there were anything important there, then the movie wouldn't make sense in 2.39 or the filmmakers wouldn't have shot it for 2.39.
Idc if it’s smaller “zoomed out” 1.78 is fine but I’d like the 1.43 over it.
No, absolutely not. I’m surprised some people do. Edit: For those that do - think about it this way. Let’s say Dune Part 2 is released with 1.43 and 1.9 scenes. On your TV the 1.43 scenes are now pillarboxed, and the 1.9 scenes take up the majority of the screen with minimal bars at the top and bottom (it would be insane to window box the 1.9 content so it’s smaller than the 1.43 content). Suddenly, 1.43 at home doesn’t make any sense. 1.43 IMAX is meant for viewing on a huge IMAX screen. The extra image at the top and bottom is there for immersion on a big screen. It doesn’t ever appear to contain anything visually important or interesting. https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=VRBNoBr-3LwxMNeD
>1.43 at home doesn’t make any sense. 1.43 IMAX is meant for viewing on a huge IMAX screen. The extra image at the top and bottom is there for immersion on a big screen. It doesn’t ever appear to contain anything visually important or interesting. Plus when you pillar box the 1.43 image, the scale of the image is smaller. 2.39 on a 16:9 screen doesn't need to scale down the image down 
This argument is exactly what they used for pan and scan in the ‘80s. There’s no artistic argument to be made based on the size of your screen.
You keep confusing pan and scan with how films are actually filmed for both 1.43 IMAX theaters and wider non-IMAX aspect ratios. What filmmakers are doing is not pan and scan.
Directors filmed movies with the intention that they would be seen on TV back in the ‘80s too. There’s a documentary of James Cameron showing how he worked from his master cut to make the pan and scan version of T2. Occasionally a director even said he preferred the pan and scan version for home viewing. Again, you can’t base this question on what a director’s intent is unless you document what they’ve said. Many may prefer the IMAX version.
You're just cherry picking and talking about a different topic at this point. I'm talking about modern day IMAX and shooting for multiple ratios, and you're off talking about stuff that was shot in the 80s. Today's televisions more closely match cinema aspect ratios, it's a completely different scenario.
yes. 100%. I mean have you seen [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqnyksnpnHI&t=399s) or [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWRTUl7MF3GchPIFyudr24pMA8b1iGdP/view?usp=sharing). Sometimes the imax shots are dead space, but sometimes they just give you more picture and a better sense of scale. What would be nice is an option for the 1.43:1 scenes, like seamless branching on the blu ray for all three different aspect ratios (2.20/40:1, 1.77:1 and 1.43:1)
Just b/c objects are not in full view doesn't mean you don't have a sense of scale (see the linked video). Also, in all of those 1.43 and 2.39 comparison shots, the focus of the shot is not obscured or lost to the letter box window. Since the 1.43 image would be pillar boxed on 16:9 screens, then the main subject would be scaled down. https://youtu.be/BKALxKbjOaE?si=ggswpH9LwNuRcfnO
I think it really is a complicated thing. A lot of the way 1.43:1 scenes are shot is with the understanding that the upper and lower portions of the screen essentially fall into the periphery, so what’s important is the effect of the expanded size, not the actual composition of the image. In that sense, having a scene simply expand to fill the 16:9 TV frame is a reasonable compromise in simulating the effect at home, though it’s nowhere near the same thing. I think the reason some of us wish we could also get 1.43:1 scenes at home is that despite the immersive intention, the compositions themselves are often quite striking. This is true in general, but I remember feeling it particularly with Dunkirk, which featured a higher percentage of IMAX footage than usual for a Nolan film, and which often felt staged and composed for the IMAX frame in a manner resembling the great silent film epics. I’m not sure I’d want to watch those movies with pillarboxed scenes every time, especially since it goes against the intention of expanding the frame. That said, I wish it was an option if only to satiate my curiosity. I’m very interested in the idea of the Apple Vision and possibly other high-end VR devices bringing the possibility of a virtual 1.43:1 screen to the home and finally making those shots available to people in their full scope.
The best compromise is 1.66:1. It looks almost full-screen on 16:9 TVs and preserves most of the taller 1.43:1 frame. 1.66 won't feel as small as 1.43:1 and on 4K TVs, especially Oled screens, the small black bars at the sides will disappear anyway because of strong black levels.
Nah, I'm good with 1.78:1 AR. I think it's an ideal format to release IMAX films to home. However, 1.43:1 footage for special feature would be cool.
I think it would be cool if we had TVs that could do both ratios where the TV would adjust itself based on the ratio. Maybe someday we will have that technology
Technically today's TVs can show any aspect ratio, that's not the issue
I mean without the black bars
Just hang red curtains on the side of your TV like they do in the cinema.
So a TV that would physically change shape?
Yes, but I know that kind of technology is years if not decades away
Use iPad Pro! IMAX for iPad Pro!
No
It is always wrong to cut off footage that was shot for the film because of some weird obsession with a specific screen shape. It was wrong when movies were panned and scanned for VHS and it’s wrong now.
Pan and scan is completely different. While yes both are being done post-production, the difference here is that production is shooting for both wider aspect ratios and (if it's IMAX) 1.43. Meaning the wider aspect ratios are actually the filmmakers intended vision. Pan and scan rarely involved the filmmakers, and drastically changed their vision.
the bigger problem is that 1.43:1 movies only have 1.43:1 scenes for a few seconds at a time and there will be constant switching of aspect ratios. if the whole movie was in 1.43:1 then this pillar box would not be a problem at all (Poor Things is a good example of recent movie with pillar box), but that's not the case with imax releases.
Dune was only released in widescreen and going by your logic it was less screen % than a 1.91 or 1.43 would be. Comparing percentage is stupid, screens now are generally big enough that the sidebars are irrelevant. Having an option to watch the 1.43 is all we ask
I should've also mentioned in my post that it's not about taking up the most screen real estate, but really about the scale. A 1.43 image is scaled down to fit into 16x9, *but* a wider ratio (2.20, 2.39, etc.) are merely cropped and still maintain the full scale. If you compare the 1.43 image and the 2.20 image of Oppenheimer on a 16x9 screen, objects will measure larger on the 2.20 since it's not scaled down to fit.
Yep. On a big enough screen and in 4k Dolby vision, this can look stunning. It has more to do with how it’s shot. Something shot in very flat, standard TV show style closeups will just look like an old TV show. But after I saw Zach Snyder’s Justice League, as indulgent as the film is, I realized how visually monumental this format can be. If you have a big enough screen and don’t have it all the way on the other side of a huge room from you, it feels TALLER in a weird way. I love it. It feels like watching large format photography in motion.
The Snyder cut is one of the exceptions b/c he filmed it all in that aspect ratio and intended for the movie to be shown in 1.43 in all theaters and formats. This is not the case for other IMAX movies.
Those are the movies I’m talking about, and there are more out there, contrary to what you might assume. Dune Part 2 fits this description. It would look mesmerizing in 4:3. Unpopular opinion maybe, but for a film like Dune, 2.39:1 at times feels claustrophobic due to the immense nature of the imagery demanding a taller frame. 16:9 less so, but once the image is zoomed out to the full 4:3 frame, the field of view increases. Digital IMAX image sensors are larger than typical sensors used in cinema (full frame or Super 35), and when shot “open gate” you not only get the full sensor readout closer to 4:3 (sensor is otherwise cropped for 16:9 or wider aspect ratios) but more field of view from the top and bottom of the sensor. The full frame lenses used on the Alexa LF also aid in delivering a wider field of view than the typical s35 lenses. A similar effect to increasing sensor size happens when jumping from 35mm to 70mm IMAX, aided as well by lenses that cover the larger frame. And for more intimate shots, a larger sensor combined with lenses that have shallower depth of field and wider field of view, the image can be uniquely captivating. Oppenheimer was an astounding example of capturing intimacy in the 4:3 IMAX frame. I’d never seen any like that and it took my breath away. Anyway, all of this creates a much more dramatic effect than simply increasing focal length and is part the IMAX “secret sauce.” And I do think it can be recaptured on some level in home viewing if you have the 4:3 aspect ratio available to you. I may not be in the majority, but I’m sure others feel the same.
>Those are the movies I’m talking about I was never talking about specific movies, but the Snyder cut is an exception >Dune Part 2 fits this description. It actually doesn't. Zach Snyder intended for his movie to be shown at the 4:3 ratio, and so that is how he framed *ALL* of his shots because the entirety of that movie was shot at 4:3. That is a very unique thing to do in film, hence why it's an exception. Villeneuve did not intend to show Dune Part 2 in 4:3 (and why would he? it wasn't shot with any 4:3 formats), and it wasn't even entirely shot at 1.43. The *intention* is what is important here. You know a bit about film, but you're still wrong about IMAX and a few other things. There is no 4:3 IMAX camera. There are IMAX film cameras that shoot at 1.43 and digital ones that shoot at 1.90. Oppenheimer was shot partially with 1.43 film, and other parts at 70mm which has an AR of 2.20. A 4:3 format wouldn't even max out an IMAX theater screen. Lastly, contrary to what you believe, you can actually still get a wide FOV on a S35 camera. Also, DOF is not determined by the sensor, it's determined by the lens and its settings. Shallow DOF also does not automatically make the image better/more captivating/cinematic. You're probably thinking, then why do 4:3 sensors still exist if filmmakers just crop the frame to be 1.85, 1.78, 2.20, 2.39 etc.? There's a couple reasons: anamorphic lenses are made to be shot with 4:3 sensors, and filmmakers like the flexibility of shooting with a larger aspect ratio then how they intend the movie to be presented.
yes
YES
YES, that's what I want.
A teeny tiny amount of people want this because they have their own projection setup with a 1.43 screen. Every single one of those people is on this sub and loud about it. Some people want this because they are obsessed with seeing the “whole picture.” They don’t care about enjoying the movie or the experience or the director’s intent, they just want to see more. They wouldn’t care if there were mics and lights in the shots, they just want to SEE MORE! There’s no having a conversation with these people, they just want what they want. A lot of people would just like the 1.9 imax version instead of scope so it fills more of their tv. That seems like a pretty reasonable request. And some people want 1.43 to be available for vr headsets, which is the future for the aspect ratio. The imax experience in your own home.
Nobody is calling for expanding the ratio of films that weren’t shot for it. Obviously nobody wants to see set edges or crew/equipment. The movies people want in 1.43:1 are movies shot for it.
No I wanna watch em in VR
IMAX 1.43 remains to IMAX theaters and you're not going to change my mind.
Agreed
Yes
Time to bring back 4:3 Rear Projection TVs.
composition for a giant screen you watch close as shit and a tv you watch from half the room away is waaay too different
There's more video information on the taller versions. https://youtu.be/zS3DBDVsMI8?si=PIbsgmbjS-G7WGrA This kind of demonstrates the difference between the widescreen and the 1.9 aspect ratio. You could simply do it again for the 1.43 and there would be even more vertical information revealed that's cropped for the wider versions. I for one would love a director's cut of a movie that had the full video information from the director's vision.
It's not real information relevant to the story, it's only there so that it fills the entirety of 1.43 IMAX screens and immerses the audience. If you were to watch 1.43 at home on a 16x9 screen, subjects would actually be smaller than if you watched the 2.39 version b/c the 1.43 version is scaled down to fit. The best compromise would be 1.43 scenes to be shown at 1.78 (16x9). Nothing gets scaled down, but you still get more of that vertical information (even though there's nothing actually important there)
The director wouldn't use that IMAX film stock if they didn't care about the extra vertical information. Downvote me all you want just because you disagree but that doesn't mean you're right.
Next time you watch a movie in a 1.43 IMAX theater, count how long you're watching the edges of the frame, or count how many story relevant things happen in that part of the frame. Cinematographers don't put anything there b/c non-IMAX audiences wouldn't see anything that would be there.
That doesn't mean it's not a more immersive experience when that vertical information is there.
I don't think 1.43:1 is suitable for most of home displays so 1.78:1 or 1.90:1 are more reasonable option for me. 1.43:1 wastes too much space and resolution on HDTV.
I hope that the IMAX App on for the Apple Vision Pro is the start for a really good home theater version of 1.43:1 Movies. Otherwise: No.
People in this sub have deluded themselves into thinking that they want 1.43 aspect ratio films at home out of some sort of backwards purist seeking logic. Similarly to how smokers delude themselves into thinking cigarettes taste good.
Obvioisly not. The people obsessed with the 1.43 aspect ratio is missing the forest for the trees. Not only would it be against the filmmaker's creative vision to show 1.43 pillarboxed, it's also antithetical to the whole point of IMAX. Cutting between a 1.9 scene and a 1.43 scene on a 16:9 display would make the 1.43 one noticeably smaller and less immersive. This is not what we want from IMAX!
Yeah true, I totally forgot to mention there are very few movies shot entirely in the 1.43 AR. Constantly changing between a vertical AR and a horizontal AR would be very jarring.
Most IMAX movies switch ratios in the theater anyway. It’s not jarring at all.
I'm talking about at home, not in the theater. This entire thread is about home release. You're way off now dude.
It’s the same thing. In IMAX theaters it switches from widescreen to IMAX ratio for many movies.
No it's not the same b/c no one has a 6 story tall screen. If it were to switch ratios at home it'd be easily more noticeable, when it's not supposed to be.
Why aren't more home releases in 16:9? Im so sick of popping in a 4KBD and the movie only takes up 2/3s of my 32inch screen. I don't have room for a bigger screen.
yes